From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cook v. Nooth

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Medford Division
Apr 7, 2011
Civ. No. 09-1034-CL (D. Or. Apr. 7, 2011)

Opinion

Civ. No. 09-1034-CL.

April 7, 2011


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Petitioner has filed objections. I have reviewed the file of this case de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F. 2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).

I agree with the Report and Recommendation that petitioner procedurally defaulted on grounds two, three, and four. As to ground one, the Oregon Supreme Court's analysis of petitioner's Confrontation Clause claim was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. See State v. Cook, 340 Or. 530, 542-50, 135 P.3d 260, 267-72 (2006) (violation at trial of petitioner's rights under Confrontation Clause was harmless error).

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#37) is adopted. The petition (#1) is dismissed with prejudice. Because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability is denied.See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 6 day of April, 2011.


Summaries of

Cook v. Nooth

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Medford Division
Apr 7, 2011
Civ. No. 09-1034-CL (D. Or. Apr. 7, 2011)
Case details for

Cook v. Nooth

Case Details

Full title:DAVID ALLEN COOK, Petitioner, v. MARK NOOTH, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon, Medford Division

Date published: Apr 7, 2011

Citations

Civ. No. 09-1034-CL (D. Or. Apr. 7, 2011)